The case of Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (2024)
Facts of the Case
The Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (2024) is
a notable court fight involving the minority status of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and its right to give reservations to Muslim students. The case traces its roots in an ongoing controversy that
has influenced the construction of minority rights in India, especially for educational institutions.
Historical Background of AMU and the Dispute
Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) has its roots in the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College, which was founded by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1875. The college was established with the main purpose of upholding modern education among Muslims in
India without compromising their religious and cultural identity. In 1920, the MAO College was converted to Aligarh Muslim University by way of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, enacted by the British colonial administration.
The institutional change from being a college to a university raised a complicated question of law:
Did AMU, which was initially founded by a minority group, continue to have its minority status after becoming a statutory institution by virtue of an Act of Parliament?
It became a prominent legal issue in 1967 in the historical case of S. Azeez Basha v. Union of
India, in which the Supreme Court held that as AMU was established by a parliamentary enactment, it was not a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution,
which provides minorities with the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. This judgment had a long-lasting effect on AMU’s autonomy and its capacity to reserve seats for Muslim students.
Legal Evolutions Leading to the 2024 Case
Notwithstanding the S. Azeez Basha judgment, the matter once again arose in 2005 when the Allahabad High Court adjudicated that AMU would not be deemed a minority institution. The court’s logic was no different from the 1967 judgment—that AMU was not “established” by a minority but by the state under the AMU Act, 1920. The judgment disqualified AMU’s move to reserve 50% of seats for Muslim students in some courses.
The decision was contested and there was a prolonged legal struggle. In reaction to the verdict, the Government of India made an appeal before the Supreme Court on behalf of AMU’s minority
status. But during 2016, the Central Government revoked its support, saying that since AMU was a centrally funded university, it would not qualify as a minority institution.
This change in policy resulted in a legal vacuum, and AMU’s status remained unsettled until Naresh Agarwal and others moved new petitions in the Supreme Court against any move to grant
AMU minority institution status. The case was finally heard in 2024 by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
ISSUES RAISED
- Does Aligarh Muslim University Constitute a Minority Institution as per Article 30 of the Constitution?
Perhaps the most primal question in this case was whether AMU may be regarded as a minority institution under Article 30(1) of the Indian Constitution.
Understanding Article 30(1):
Article 30(1) provides for religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer schools of their choice.
Yet, the debate in this case was about what “establish” and “administer” mean.
Naresh Agarwal and the other parties contended that AMU was not “established” by the Muslim community but by an Act of Parliament (AMU Act, 1920). Therefore, it
cannot be said to enjoy protection under Article 30.
The university argued that although the British government officially recognized it under the AMU Act, it had its origins in the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College, which
was established by the Muslim community led by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan in 1875. This asked for a serious question that does a university lose its minority status if it is officially recognized by a legislative act?
This problem asked the Supreme Court to decide whether a previously minority-
governed institution could still maintain minority status even after it had become a statutory university.
- Can a University Founded by a Parliamentary Statute Still Be a Minority Institution? This problem is closely related to the first and has important implications for the autonomy of minority institutions.
The Core Legal Question:
Can a minority community institution, which was initially established by a minority group, continue to maintain its minority character even if it
was subsequently accorded statutory recognition?
Is government involvement in the creation of a university automatically going to make it non- minority?
This was a crucial question because:
- Historical Precedent – S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1967):
The Supreme Court in 1967 held that AMU was not a minority institution since it was established by Parliament, not by the Muslim community itself.
This judgment implied that once an institution is formed by a law, it ceases to be a minority institution.
- Contrary Examples – Jamia Millia Islamia & St. Stephen’s College:
Institutions such as Jamia Millia Islamia and St. Stephen’s College
have continued to maintain minority status even though they have received state aid.
The distinction is that these institutions were initially established by minorities in the absence of state legislation.
- Implications of the Verdict- If the court upheld Azeez Basha, it
would mean that all institutions established under a statute or recognized by the government lose their minority status by default.
If the court reversed Azeez Basha, it could redefine minority institutions’ classification in India and give more autonomy to universities founded by minority groups in the first place.
- What is the Scope of the Government’s Participation in the Administration of AMU, and Does State Control Rule Out Its Minority Status?
Another critical problem was the degree of control that the government has over AMU and whether or not this interference bars it from being a minority institution.
Key Considerations-
AMU is funded by the Central Government and is a centrally funded university.
The Vice-Chancellor is appointed by the President of India, and the university has to follow University Grants Commission (UGC) rules.
Because AMU is subject to parliamentary legislation and state statutes, its scope to self- govern is restricted.
The Legal Dilemma:
Petitioner’s Position: If the government is directly engaged in funding and administration, then AMU is no longer an independent minority institution.
AMU’s Position:
The university rebutted that government funding does not take away its minority status. There are several minority-administered schools and colleges that receive financial assistance from the government but remain autonomous.
Broader Implications for Other Institutions-
The ruling on this case can have ramifications for all minority institutions that are funded by the state.
A defeat for AMU would set a precedent that any government-funded minority institution is no longer a minority institution.
CONTENTION
The case of Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors.
(2024) was a bitter legal struggle between the petitioners (Naresh Agarwal and others) and the
respondents (AMU and its sponsor organizations). The issues revolved around AMU’s minority status, the constitutional validity of its admission policy, and the historical and legal grounds of its formation.
- Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The petitioner objected to the claim of AMU as a minority
institution and filed four main legal and constitutional objections.
- The main contention of one of the petitioners is that AMU was not established by the Muslim community, but by the British government in 1920 under the AMU Act.
- The petitioners argued that AMU was established by an Act of Parliament in 1920, that is, not by a minority community but by the state itself.
According to the S. Azeez Basha v. Union of India (1968) decision,
institutions created by the state cannot be declared minority institutions as per Article 30(1) of the Constitution.
- Article 30(1) gives minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions.
- The petitioners contended that even if AMU had a historical relationship with the Muslim community, it was not “established” by them but by Parliament in
its existing form. They contended that merely running a university does
not qualify it as a minority institution and that it has to be established by the minority.
- AMU’s Muslim Student Reservation Violates Articles 14 and 15
- The petitioners contended that AMU’s practice of reserving 50% of seats for Muslim students in some courses was a patent disregard of the constitutional doctrine of
equality.
- Article 14 provides that the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws.
- Since AMU is a government-funded public university, it has to adopt non- discriminatory admissions policies.
- Violations of Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on Religious Grounds):
Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination based on religion by the educational institutions funded by the state.
- Legal Precepts in Support of This Argument: In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), the Supreme Court ruled that reservations had to be made on socio-
economic grounds, not religious identity. The petitioners contended that religion- based reservations strain India’s secular fabric and constitutional promises of
equality.
- AMU Being Government-Funded Erodes Minority Rights
- The petitioners highlighted that AMU is financed by the Central Government and governed by the state.
- AMU is a central university in the sense that it is financed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) and other government programs.
- Being government-dependent, it cannot be treated as a private minority institution enjoying special privileges.
- The Vice-Chancellor of AMU is appointed by the President of India, and government agencies control its policies.
- When AMU is provided with minority status, it will amount to a constitutional contradiction that a state-run organization is being permitted to operate on religious lines.
- Dependence on the S. Azeez Basha Judgment (1968)
- The petitioners drew extensively from the Supreme Court decision in S. Azeez Basha
v. Union of India (1968), where it held that AMU was not a minority institution.
- The judgment maintained that as the AMU came into existence due to an Act of Parliament, it was not “established” by a minority community.
The petitioners claimed that this precedent was binding and any effort to overrule it would be unconstitutional.
- AMU’s Minority Status Not Violative of Secularism
- The interviewees rebutted the argument based
on secularism by observing that numerous minority institutions are aided by the government while not sacrificing autonomy.
- Christian and Sikh institutions like St. Stephen’s College, Delhi, too are aided by the government but maintain their minority status.
Simply getting government grants does not necessarily mean an institution is no longer minority-operated.
RATIONALE AND JUDGMENT
In its decision in Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (2024), the Supreme Court of India went into a critical constitutional and legal analysis of the status of AMU as a minority
institution, its relationship with the state, and the constitutionality of its admissions policy.
The decision was meant to achieve a balance among minority rights, constitutional equality, and secular rule.
The following is a detailed analysis of the Court’s rationale and ultimate decision:
- Minority Status Interpretation
- One of the key issues in the case was whether AMU is a minority institution under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which reads:
“All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”
- The Court recognized AMU’s strong historical basis in the Muslim
community, having been established as the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental (MAO) College in 1875.
- But the Court underlined the fact that the university, in its current configuration,
was instituted by the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920, which was enacted by the British government and subsequently modified by independent India’s Parliament.
- The Court observed that a literal interpretation of
“establishment” might have unfair implications and deprive many historically minority-controlled institutions of their entitlements.
- Re-evaluating the Azeez Basha Precedent
- In light of the petitioners’ reliance on Azeez Basha, the Supreme Court revisited the question of whether the
judgment remained applicable in today’s constitutional law.
- Revisiting the 1968 Ruling:
The Azeez Basha ruling rested on the belief that no institution established by a legislative enactment can be said to be “established” by a minority.
Nonetheless, the bench today noted that this kind of interpretation was excessively strict and did not take into account
changing jurisprudence regarding minority rights.
- The Court pointed out that institutions born in the past can change and become legally accepted over time
without abandoning their original purpose.
- Government Funding and Minority Rights
One of the key arguments of the petitioners was that AMU is funded by the government, which, according to them, takes away its right to be a minority institution.
The Court’s Observations:
The fact that an institution is funded by the government does not per se take away its minority character.
The Court referred to precedents of cases relating to Christian and Sikh minority institutions, such as:
T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) – which held that minority
institutions do not have to sacrifice their autonomy in order to accept government assistance. St. Stephen’s College v. University of Delhi (1992) – which reaffirmed the right of minority- managed institutions to control admissions while accepting state support.
But the Court drew a distinction between financial support and administrative control: Where the state extends undue control over administration, the institution loses its
independent nature.
In the case of AMU, the Court held that though the government is involved in appointments and finances, the institution enjoys considerable autonomy in its management
Last Hold on Minority Status:
AMU is a minority institution under Article 30 even though it is legislatively established and subsidized by the government.
But the level of government intervention should be closely watched to avoid undue state interference.
DEFECTS OF LAW
While the Supreme Court’s decision in Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (2024) was a milestone ruling, it left some legal lacunae untied.
These legal loopholes might invite future controversy on issues concerning minority rights, state intervention, and academic autonomy. Following is a detailed analysis of
the most salient flaws in the law laid bare by the case.
- Uncertainty regarding the Definition of “Establishment” under Article 30
One of the key conundrums in the case was the meaning of “establishment” as per Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which provides for minorities to establish and manage educational institutions.
The Court confirmed AMU’s minority status but did not explicitly define what is meant by “establishment” by a minority group.
If AMU was held not to be a minority institution since it received legal recognition under an Act of Parliament, then other institutions like it that developed with
state assistance could similarly risk losing their minority status in subsequent litigation.
The decision left open the possibility that an institution might still retain a minority character despite subsequent legal formalization by the state.
- Ambiguity in Defining State Control vs. Minority Autonomy
The decision recognized the doctrine that government support and regulation do not necessarily invalidate an institution’s minority status. Yet it did
not set a specific legal benchmark for determining how much state regulation is too much.
To what extent does government administrative control undermine an institution’s autonomy?
At what point does the funding and government assistance become more controlling than helpful? When does state intervention disqualify an institution from asserting minority rights?
Lack of clear guidelines opens the door to future legal battles where institutions might be accused of being “state-controlled” as opposed to “minority-administered.”
Subsequent governments may employ administrative control as a means to test the independence of minority institutions.
INFERENCE
The Supreme Court’s Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (2024) judgment is a landmark in Indian judicial history, particularly in the area of minority rights, constitutional
interpretation, and state control over educational institutions. The judgment strikes a delicate balance between protecting the rights of minority communities to manage their institutions
and promoting constitutional values of equality and secularism.
The judgment of the Court reaffirmed the constitutional right of minorities to establish and run schools under Article 30.
It took the position that a historical minority institution does not transform its nature just because it was subsequently acknowledged or institutionalized by a legislative measure.
The ruling upholds the educational and cultural autonomy of minority groups such that the interference of the government does not dilute their fundamental rights.
By making provisions for minority character of AMU, the Court acknowledged the cultural and historical background of those institutions which were formed for
educational advancement of specific groups.
The Court rejected the argument that government money alone would displace an institution from its minority nature.
It acknowledged that institutions can be supported by the state while maintaining administrative autonomy.
The case reveals a lack of clear legislative provision on the intersection of minority administration and state control.
Subsequent amendments and legislation may be necessary to delineate the degree of government legal authority over minority-run universities.
The Aligarh Muslim University v. Naresh Agarwal & Ors. (2024) is a milestone judgment in
the field of minority rights, educational autonomy, and constitutional law. But while the judgment determines vital questions of law, it leaves some vagueness unsettled: particularly with regard to:
- The extent of state intervention which abolishes minority status.
- The ceilings of allowable reservations in minority institutions.
- The more general implications to other minority-seeker universities.
- In the future, legislative and
judicial clarification will be needed to prevent future confrontation and make sure that minority institutions can function within a constitutionally acceptable framework.
- The ruling is a move towards a more inclusive, secular, and balanced approach of minority rights in the education system of India.
Name – Kriti Joshi
College – University of Lucknow